Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 29238

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Harpreet Singh Brar, J
Dinesh Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana – Respondent
CWP-24888-2023

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Jai Vir Yadav, Tapan Kumar Yadav, Gursimrat Sandhu, Aman Gautam
For the Respondents: Piyush Khanna, Jagbir Malik

The principle that vacancies arising before the amendment of rules must be filled by old rules is no longer an inflexible mandate; government employees have no vested right to be considered under repealed rules, and erroneous promotions made in violation of valid service rules may be rectified by the department.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Art. 226/227 - Service Law - Promotion - Vacancies occurring prior to amendment of Rules - Whether governed by old Rules - Principle of 'Old Vacancy, Old Rules' as laid down in Y.V. Rangaiah case - Overruled by State of H.P. v. Raj Kumar (2023) 3 SCC 773 - Held, there is no inflexible principle that vacancies must be filled under rules prevailing at the time they arose; candidate has right to be considered under rules in force on date of consideration.

(B) Administrative Law - Promotion - Void ab initio orders - Power of employer to correct mistakes - If erroneous promotion is given by incorrectly interpreting rules or in absence of vacancies, employer is not prevented from applying rules rightly and correcting the mistake, even if it causes hardship to employees.

Facts of the case:
The petitioners were promoted to the post of Assistant Fire Station Officer/Sub Fire Officer in the Municipal Corporation, Gurugram, based on the principle of 'old vacancy, old rules'. Subsequently, the respondents issued show-cause notices alleging that the promotion was void ab initio due to lack of vacancies under the old rules and the order having been passed by an incompetent authority under the new 2016 Rules. The promotions were later withdrawn by the Commissioner, leading to the filing of the present petition.

Findings of Court:
The Court found that there were no sanctioned vacancies available under the old rules in the Municipal Corporation, Gurugram, prior to the enforcement of the 2016 Rules. Consequently, the promotion orders were passed without jurisdiction. The Court clarified that since the vacancies arose after the new rules came into force, they are governed by the 2016 Rules, where the Director of Fire Services is the competent authority.

Issues: Whether the petitioners were entitled to promotion under the old rules based on the 'old vacancy, old rules' principle and whether the reversion order was valid.

Ratio Decidendi: Following the Supreme Court's decision in State of H.P. v. Raj Kumar, the Court held that the 'Rangaiah' principle is not a universal mandate; government employees do not have a vested right to be promoted under repealed rules if a policy decision exists to the contrary. Rectification of erroneous promotions due to departmental mistake is legally permissible.

Result: Petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. factual history regarding the petitioners' promotion and subsequent reversion leading to the writ petition. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
2. contentions of parties regarding jurisdiction, vacancy availability, and scope of promotion rules. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14)
3. court's legal analysis regarding the applicability of old rules versus new rules and the power to correct errors. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24)
4. final outcome of the petition confirming the dismissal. (Para 25 , 26)

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (Oral)

1. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned orders dated 27.10.2023 (Annexure P-11), 29.12.2023 (Annexure P-15), and 06.01.2024 (Annexure P-16), whereby the Petitioners have been reverted from the post of Assistant Fire Station Officer/Sub Fire Officer to Leading Fireman. The petitioners further pray for the issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to allow the petitioners to continue to work on the promoted post of Assistant Fire Station Officer/Sub Fire Officer and to grant all consequential benefits.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

2. Briefly stated, the petitioners were appointed as Fireman by the Deputy Commissioner, Gurugram in exercise of power under the Haryana Municipal Services (Integration, Recruitment & Conditions of Services) Rules, 1982 (hereinafter ‘1982 Rules’). They were promoted as Leading Fireman by the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Gurugram vide order dated 25.11.2011, in the exercise of powers under the Haryana Municipal Service Rules, 1998 (hereinafter ‘1998 Rules’).

3. The genesis of the present dispute lies in the creation of 97 posts of Sub Fire Officer by the Government of Haryana vide communication dated 04.06.2014 to Director, Urban Local Bodies, Haryana. The Petitioners, along with others, filed CWP No. 262 of 2018 titled as ‘Mam Raj and others v. State of Haryana and others’ seeking quashing of advertisement dated 19.12.2017 to the extent vide which 26 posts of Sub Fire Officer were advertised by the Department to be filled by direct recruitment. The petitioners submitted that the posts are to be filled only by way of promotion as per the 1982 Rules and 1998 Rules in light of the principle of “old vacancy, old rules” as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Y.V. Rangaiah & Ors. Vs. J. Sreenivasa Rao & Ors., (1983) 3 SCC 284.

4. Vide judgment dated 13.09.2018 (Annexure P-1), this Court allowed the writ petition, directing the Respondents to consider the case of the Petitioners for promotion as per the 1982 Rules, observing that the 97 sanctioned posts were vacant prior to the promulgation of the new Haryana Fire (Group C) Service Rules, 2016 (hereinafter, ‘2016 Rules’) and thus had to be filled by promotion under the old rules. The Court observed as follows:

“The respondents cannot rely upon the Haryana Fire (Group C) Services Rules, 2016, as the principle of old vacancy old rule has to be followed by the department. Since all the above 97 sanctioned posts are lying vacant prior to the promulgation of the 2016 rules, these posts can only be filled by way of promotion and not by direct recruitment. Further the similarly situated persons have also been promoted by the department vide order dated 07.04.2017 (P-15).

In view of the above factual position, the instant petition is disposed of with a direction to respondents to consider the case of the petitioners for promotion, as per Haryana Municipal Services (Integration Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1982 and pass appropriate orders within a period of three months and inform this Court.”

5. In compliance, after departmental correspondence and a Contempt Petition (COCP No. 484 of 2019), the Respondent-Department, vide letter dated 08.02.2019, directed the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Gurugram—being the competent

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 29238

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARHHarpreet Singh Brar, JDinesh Kumar – AppellantVersusState of Haryana – RespondentCWP-24888-2023

Cases Referred (3)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Harpreet Singh Brar, J
Dinesh Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana – Respondent
CWP-24888-2023